In a dramatic escalation of U.S. foreign policy, the Trump administration’s recent military assault on Venezuela marks what the President himself described as the largest intervention since World War II. Coming after bombings in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, and Nigeria, and deploying troops into U.S. cities, these actions raise critical questions about the “America First” doctrine and the constitutional limits of executive war powers. The rhetoric has also broadened, with threats against Colombia, assertions about Cuba, and saber-rattling directed at Mexico, Greenland, and Canada. Has “America First” truly become “The Americas First” through military might?

The Shifting Sands of “America First” Foreign Policy

President Trump, who vowed a non-interventionist approach, delivered a stark message from Mar-a-Lago on January 3, 2026, announcing an “extraordinary military operation” in Venezuela. “Overwhelming American military power, air, land, and sea was used to launch a spectacular assault,” he stated. This move, which coincidentally overshadowed the five-year anniversary of J6, the Jack Smith testimony, and persistent issues like healthcare costs and crypto-corruption, suggests a leader emboldened by what he perceives as an “easy win.” His subsequent claim over Venezuela’s oil reserves and plans for American corporate rebuilding highlight a dangerous expansion of presidential authority, mirroring past imperialistic tendencies.

Echoes of History: Founders’ Warnings on Executive War Powers

To understand the gravity of these developments, we turn to Rachel Maddow’s prescient 2012 book, “Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power.” Maddow meticulously details how successive administrations have circumvented constitutional checks on war-making. She invokes the wisdom of the U.S. founders, whose foresight in crafting Article I, Section 8, aimed to vest the power to declare war squarely with the Legislature, not a single executive.

James Madison, in his “Political Observations” of 1795, starkly warned, “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” He feared war’s ability to multiply debts and taxes, expand executive discretion, and ultimately bring “the many under the domination of the few.” Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln shared similar concerns about the seductive allure of military glory for a single leader, seeing it as an “attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood.”

The ‘Drift’ of Presidential Power and Modern Precedents

Maddow’s “Drift” spotlights the “unified executive theory,” a dangerous interpretation of presidential power championed by figures like Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney. This theory, used in events from Iran-Contra to the invasion of Grenada, fundamentally departs from the founders’ vision. Speaker Tip O’Neill’s outrage at Reagan’s unilateral Grenada action, following the Beirut barracks bombing, serves as a powerful reminder of Congress’s historical attempts to assert its constitutional prerogatives via the War Powers Resolution.

Reclaiming Constitutional Balance on National Security

While written before Trump’s presidency, “Drift” offers an chillingly relevant framework. Maddow’s epilogue, “You Build It, You Own It,” proposes eight recommendations for reining in the executive and restoring congressional oversight. Crucially, she argues that the “imperial presidency” is not a partisan issue but a fundamental threat to constitutionalism. Decisions about national security, she asserts, are “ours to make.”

The current Trump military intervention in Venezuela and the broader expansion of threats underscore the urgent need to revive the idea of America as a “deliberately peaceable nation.” This is not just an inheritance; it is our responsibility, enshrined in our Constitution, to speak and to vote, ensuring that no single leader can unilaterally plunge the nation into continuous warfare. Protecting our constitutional balance is paramount to securing our future.